PAST LESSONS FOR MIDEAST PEACE TALKS

Meir Rosenne, President and CEO, State of Israel Bonds, Former ambassador from Israel to U.S and FranceCHICAGO TRIBUNE

All parties to the Arab-Israeli talks can derive some crucially relevant lessons about how to reach a just and durable peace from a study of the principles that prevailed in the negotiations that culminated in the Israel-Egypt peace treaty 14 years ago.

The underlying premise must be a true mutuality: Since Israel is, and always has been, prepared to recognize the legitimacy of the Arab states, so must the Arabs, like Anwar Sadat of Egypt, demonstrate their full and unconditional acceptance of Israel's moral, legal and political legitimacy by putting an end to belligerence and economic boycott.

If the Arab rulers intend to prepare their publics for peace with Israel, they will present a healthier image of Israel in their mass media, to replace the virulent anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist propaganda that has flourished there.

Since Israel, viewed as illegitimate, has been the object of violent hostility aimed at its eradication from the region, a genuine peace, to be just and durable, must take full account of its profound security concerns.

Peace cannot be imposed by a third party, nor will it stem from direct or indirect outside pressure. Although the U.S. played an essential role in the Israel-Egypt negotiations, it was not to impose conditions but to exert moral suasion; to act as catalyst and facilitator. Peace can be reached only through direct bilateral negotiations between sovereign and equal states.

An agreement can only be premised on the understanding that peace is necessary for both sides, not just for Israel. The rather widespread current belief that Israel alone needs peace and therefore it alone must pay a price for it is clearly an insuperable obstacle to peace. The prevailing principle must be equivalence, in which context one may ask: What price are the Arabs prepared to pay for peace?

Since it is Israel that would be taking the concrete risks, giving up tangibles vital to its security on the Golan Heights and the West Bank-territory, strategic depth, defensive military installations, productive civilian communities-in exchange for paper commitments, Israel cannot afford to make mistakes. For all other powers, the Middle East issue is economic, strategic, diplomatic. For Israel, the issue is its very existence. The principle therefore is that any future peace agreement must be rigorously self-enforcing, as is the Israel-Egypt treaty.

Underlying America's indispensable role of honest broker in the negotiations that led to the peace was its long-standing staunch support for Israel's security and well-being. This special relationship, based on historical, moral and political factors, was recognized and understood by Anwar Sadat.

For Israel to take great risks for peace would require the psychological as well as pragmatic security that flows from assurances rooted in that relationship. Such a delicately balanced role for the U.S. would have to be an inextricable element, understood by all parties, in safeguarding future Israeli-Arab peace agreements.

Israel's vital imperative, in an age that has witnessed the unbearable burden of mass slaughter of Jews with precious little outside intervention, is to remain a secure democratic bastion of political, economic and defensive vigor, for the sake of saving Jewish lives.